footprints
Well-Known Member
Beliefs about whether god exists or not have no bearing upon the stance of agnosticism, because they are about two separate things: god's existence and knowledge. If a person believes that god exists, then he is a theist. If he also believes that you can't know the fact for sure, then he is also a (pure, to use your term) agnostic. This is the philosophical understanding of agnosticism; it is not simply my own interpretation.
When pertaining to the deity debate, the knowledge pertains to the diety position. So please excuse me, for not seperating the two.
I do not hold much faith (strength) of belief in philosphy. My personal opinion of philosophy aligns with Dawkins beliefs pertaining to theology studies at Universtity, they shouldn't be there. Just a waste of space and over the top intellectual reasoning which generally leaves them nowhere and always aligns with the philosophical intelligence of the philosophers own personal belief patterns.
I am agnostic, Immortal is agnostic, many other agnostics in this forum, pure evidence alone, shows and strongly, strongly, suggests we do not carry the same belief patterns where a deity is concerned. The knowledge we have each gained through our own personal life experience and the environments directly around us, have clearly led us to different places.
Ah, but we aren't talking about evidence. We are talking about proof. Agnosticism, at least as far as I know, does not rule out the possibility of evidence. It simply rules out knowing that God exists (or does not exist) without a doubt.
We get proof, to a greater or lesser degree from evidence. The human brain can do it no other way, in order to reach a position on anything, the brain must first relate and associate to that position. The brain then hardwires this knowledge in. Only greater evidence (which provides the proof needed to gain greater knowledge), can ever change an association pattern, once it is hard wired in.
And just so you are aware, by proof and evidence, I don't mean the proof and evidence the atheist or the theist offers themselves, this is good only for their own personal belief patterns. The individual, the human, not the atheist or the theist, must accept the proof and evidence themselves. What you, I or anybody else accepts as proof or evidence, means absolutely nothing, it is not our brains we are talking about here. We can only ever accept new evidence when we start questioning our own beliefs, this generally goes against the stream of normal human behaviour, as people find a comfortable spot, and make themselves as comfortable as possible in it. Only when they become uncomfortable, do they look for a better position.
Last edited: